4. RESULTS
5.3 Limitations and future research
As this thesis was carried out as a case study, there are certain limitations related to its results. The achieved outcomes and the theoretical findings are observed from one company, and from one innovation ecosystem. This may have affects to the applicability of the study results. Additionally, the interviewees were collected based on to the recommendations of process owners, and there was typically only one in-terviewee per market area’s subprocess. Thus, the inin-terviewee’s own subjective per-ceptions may have affected the results. To control the possible individual percep-tions, some of the more complex subprocesses were shown to other members in the stakeholder group to verify the modelled sub processes’ correctness.
This thesis data collection method was based solely on semi-structured interviews.
According to Saunders et al. (2016), semi-structured interview’s lack of standardiza-tion may cause concerns related to the study’s reliability/dependability, validity/cred-ibility, and generalization. Especially, the lack of standardization may have affected to the reliability/dependability of the study (Saunders et al. 2016). As the interviews were flexible by nature, the level of detail may have altered between the interviews.
Conducting the interviews both in Finnish and English may have affected to the depth of detail gathered from the interviews. There is a possibility that the researcher has been able to understand and thus ask more detailed questions in those interviews
which were conducted in one’s own mother tongue. This makes the depth of infor-mation of different interviews unsteady and may cause difficulties for other research-ers to collect similar information in their research. Since all information was collected from semi-structured interviews, there may have been situations where either the interviewee or the interviewer has been biased in the interviewing situations. Thus, affecting to the thesis’ reliability. The interviewer’s lower status in the organization hierarchy may have affected to the level of detail the interviewee would think the interviewer is able to comprehend. Additionally, the interviewer may have been bi-ased by the cumulative knowledge collected from different interviews, and hence has done wrong conclusions from the interviewee’s shared information. To avoid the pos-sibility of the interviewee thinking that the interviewer would not be able to understand the process well enough, the interviewer gave a short presentation about the project scope and the needed level of detail before initiating the interviews. To avoid inter-viewer bias, the interinter-viewer deployed follow up interviews with the interviewees to go through the conclusions. As the interviewees had limited time to spend in the inter-views, a possibility for participation bias needs to be considered. Additionally, some people were more interested to share their insights about their processes than oth-ers. This may have affected to interviewees’ motivation to share details, and to the interest to correct misunderstandings from the modelled E2E process.
According to Saunders et al. (2016), a potential validity issue in the results is related to the “operational language gap” that the interviewee and interviewer may have had.
In other words, the interviewer does not have the needed knowledge to understand the interviewee’s answers. Since the interviews were done for the entire E2E pro-cess, it included multiple different subprocesses from different process areas. This required the interviewer to understand a wide category of different operational terms and abbreviations. To avoid any misunderstandings, the interviewer asked the inter-viewee always to open the meanings of the used terms of which the interviewer was not aware of. Additionally, if any questions were risen from the recordings, the inter-viewer reached out to the interviewee and asked for a more detailed explanation.
Naturally, there is also a possibility that the interviewer did not have the required understanding to even know that something mentioned by the interviewee would need a more detailed clarification. As the information from the interviews was used to model the case company’s E2E process it is important to assess the interview structure’s measurement validity. In other words, whether the questions were able to provide answers about the reality which was desired to be measured in the study. As some of the process areas were new to the researcher, there is a possibility that the
researcher was unable to ask as detailed questions about the unknown process ar-eas compared to the more familiar ones. This may have affected to the mar-easurement validity of some of the modelled process areas. It is important to discuss the content validity as well since it measures the questions’ adequateness to provide answers to the investigative questions (Saunders et al. 2016). In this case study, the interview’s questions were gone through with the case company’s process modelling team, and corrections were made to the questionnaire structure before initiating the interviews.
Naturally, every E2E process is different and thus there is a possibility that the exter-nal evaluators of the questionnaire were not able to give an objective enough advice to correct the questions. Hence, there may have been information related to the re-search questions which have stayed unrevealed since the rere-searcher has not been able to ask specified enough questions.
Since the thesis was conducted as a case study, there may be a risk for its transfer-ability. In other words, whether the thesis’ research design can be applied to other settings, or if it is applicable only to the company in which the research was deployed (Saunders et al. 2016). The case company’s modelled process is a global ecosystem reaching different sites across the world. Thus, although the study was conducted only in one company, the study settings differed per market area and enriched the collected data set. Additionally, as the case study’s results responded well to the theoretical literature, an assumption can be made, that the research design and the achieved results may be applicable also in other study environments.
The achieved results from the thesis serve opportunities for future research. As this research and its results are from one company and line of business, there is room for further research in different industries. A broader sampling would enrich the data and highlight possible similarities between the companies even in different industries.
Additionally, this thesis conducted the innovation ecosystem analysis based on to the collected information from an E2E process. In further research it might be worth-while to study the differences of results that are achieved with different risk analysis methods, and then compare the methods’ applicabilities.
As this thesis proved that a modelled E2E process works as a good information source for innovation ecosystem analysis, future research could also study the changes that the innovation ecosystem risks go through as the time goes forward. In other words, a follow up study could be conducted to the case company. This study would investigate the E2E process, and the possible changes deployed to it. This would then provide an information source for the research to compare the existing
innovation ecosystem risks with the previously identified risks, and whether the risk analysis actually provokes the companies to take action for the identified risks.
REFERENCES
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem, Harvard busi-ness review, Vol. 84(4), pp. 98-107; 148.
Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens: What Successful Innovators See That Others Miss, Penguin Publishing Group, East Rutherford, 288 p.
Adner, R. & Feiler, D. (2019). Interdependence, Perception, and Investment Choices: An Exper-imental Approach to Decision Making in Innovation Ecosystems, Organization science (Provi-dence, R.I.), Vol. 30(1), pp. 109-125.
Aguilar-Savén, R.S. (2004). Business process modelling: Review and framework, International journal of production economics, Vol. 90(2), pp. 129-149.
Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent, Strategic management journal, Vol. 14(1), pp. 33-46.
Amjad, A., Azam, F., Anwar, M.W., Butt, W.H. & Rashid, M. (2018). Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) for Modeling and Verification of Business Requirements - A Systematic Literature Re-view, IEEE access, Vol. 6 pp. 1.
Augier, M. & Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities and the Role of Managers in Business Strategy and Economic Performance, Organization science (Providence, R.I.), Vol. 20(2), pp.
410-421.
Barney, J.B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy, Man-agement science, Vol. 32(10), pp. 1231-1241.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Man-agement, Vol. 17(1), pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1995). Looking inside for Competitive Advantage, The Academy of Management executive (1993), Vol. 9(4), pp. 49-61.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the Fu-ture, Journal of Management, Vol. 36(1), pp. 256-280.
Becker, J., Rosemann, M. & von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of Business Process Mode-ling, in: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J. & Oberweis, A. (ed.), Business Process Management: Mo-dels, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 30-49.
Brown, C. (2019). Why and how to employ the SIPOC model, Journal of Business Continuity &
Emergency Planning, Vol. 12(3), pp. 198-210.
Brussee, W. (2012). Statistics for Six Sigma made easy, McGraw-Hill, 304 p.
Campbell, M.G. (2014). Project management, Alpha, a member of Penguin Group (USA) inter-corporated, 384 p.
Carayannis, E.G. & Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st cen-tury fractal innovation ecosystem, International journal of technology management, Vol. 46(3-4), pp. 201-234.
Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H. & Kretschmer, T. (2018). Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements, Information systems research, Vol. 29(2), pp. 461-478.
Chimhamhiwa, D., Molen, P.v.d., Mutanga, O. & Rugege, D. (2009). Towards a framework for measuring end to end performance of land administration business processes – A case study, Computers, environment and urban systems, Vol. 33(4), pp. 293-301.
Damelio, R. (2011). Basics of Process Mapping, 2nd Edition, Taylor & Francis, Portland, 65 p.
Danilovic, M. & Leisner, P. (2007). Analyzing core competence and core products for develop-ing agile and adaptable corporation, Proceeddevelop-ings of the 9th International DSM Conference, pp.
49.
Dattée, B., Alexy, O. & Autio, E. (2018). Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the eco-system game when uncertainty is high, Academy of Management journal, Vol. 61(2), pp. 466-498.
Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign, Sloan management review, Vol. 31(4), pp. 11.
Davis, J., MacDonald, A. & White, L. (2010). Problem-structuring methods and project manage-ment: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodol-ogy, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 61(6), pp. 893-904.
Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989a). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Ad-vantage, Management science, Vol. 35(12), pp. 1504-1511.
Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989b). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Ad-vantage, Management science, Vol. 35(12), pp. 1504-1511.
Dijkman, R.M., Vanderfeesten, I.T.P. & Reijers, H.A. (2011). The road to a business process ar-chitecture: an overview of approaches and their use, Beta Working Paper series 350, Eindho-ven
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J. & Reijers, H.A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Pro-cess Management, Second edition ed. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J. & Reijers, H.A. (2013). Fundamentals of Business Pro-cess Management, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Berlin
Eid Sabbagh, R., Dijkman, R.M., Weske, M.H., Baros, A., Gal, A. & Kindler, E. (2012). Business process architecture: use and correctness, Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 65-81.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic man-agement journal, Vol. 21(10/11), pp. 1105-1121.
Fahy, J. (2002). A resource-based analysis of sustainable competitive advantage in a global en-vironment, International business review, Vol. 11(1), pp. 57-77.
Farquhar, J.D. (2012). Case study research for business, 1. publ. ed. SAGE, Los Angeles u.a, 134 p.
Foss, N.J. & Knudsen, T. (2003). The Resource-Based Tangle: Towards a Sustainable Expla-nation of Competitive Advantage, Managerial and decision economics, Vol. 24(4), pp. 291-307.
Frye, D.W. & Gulledge, T.R. (2007). End-to-end business process scenarios, Industrial manage-ment + data systems, Vol. 107(6), pp. 749-761.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S. & Nascimento, Luis Felipe Machado do (2011). A re-source -based view of green supply management, Transportation research. Part E, Logistics and transportation review, Vol. 47(6), pp. 872-885.
Gomes, L., Facin, A.L.F., Salerno, M.S. & Ikenami, R.K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation eco-system construct: Evolution, gaps and trends, Technological forecasting & social change, Vol.
136 pp. 30-48.
Gonzalez-Lopez, F. & Bustos, G. (2019). Business process architecture design methodologies – a literature review, Business process management journal, Vol. 25(6), pp. 1317-1334.
Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation, California management review, Vol. 33(3), pp. 114-135.
Grimm, C.M., Graham, G., Lee, H., Smith, K.G. & Place, U.T. (2005). Strategy as action: com-petitive dynamics and comcom-petitive advantage, Oxford University Press, 278 p.
Gulledge, T.R. & Sommer, R.A. (2002). Business process management: public sector implica-tions, Business process management journal, Vol. 8(4), pp. 364-376.
Hall, R. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources, Strategic management journal, Vol. 13(2), pp. 135-144.
Hammer, M. & Stanton, S. (1999). How process enterprises really work, Harvard business re-view, Vol. 77(6), pp. 108-216.
Harmon, P. (2007). Business process change: a guide for business managers and BPM and six sigma professionals, Elsevier, 572 p.
Helfat, C.E. & Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles, Strategic management journal, Vol. 24(10), pp. 997-1010.
Helfat, C.E. & Peteraf, M.A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a de-velopmental path, Strategic organization, Vol. 7(1), pp. 91-102.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D. & Winter, S.G.
(2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell Pub-lishing, Malden, USA, 160 p.
Hernes, T. & Maitlis, S. (2010). Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing, 1. publ. in paperback ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hillson, D. (2017). Managing Risk in Projects, Taylor and Francis, 126 p.
Holt, J. & Morris, J. (2009). A Pragmatic Guide to Business Process Modelling, 2nd ed. BCS The Chartered Institute, 248 p.
Hung, R.Y. (2006). Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and em-pirical study, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 17(1), pp. 21-40.
Iansiti, M. & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology, Harvard business review, Vol. 82(3), pp.
68-78, 126.
Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C. & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems, Strategic management journal, Vol. 39(8), pp. 2255-2276.
Jeston, J. & Nelis, J. (2008). Management by process, Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, Routledge, 303 p.
Kasim, T., Haracic, M. & Haracic, M. (2018). The Improvement of Business Efficiency Through Business Process Management, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol 16. pp. 31-43 Kay, N.M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities as context: the role of decision, system and structure, Industrial and corporate change, Vol. 19(4), pp. 1205-1223.
Kohlbacher, M. & Gruenwald, S. (2011). Process orientation: conceptualization and measure-ment, Business process management journal, Vol. 17(2), pp. 267-283.
Komarova, J. (2019). Definition of system for business process modeling, Master Thesis, Tam-pere University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, TamTam-pere, 208 p.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B. & Tyler, B.B. (2007). The relationships between supplier develop-ment, commitdevelop-ment, social capital accumulation and performance improvedevelop-ment, Journal of oper-ations management, Vol. 25(2), pp. 528-545.
Laguna, M. & Marklund, J. (2019). Business Process Modeling, Simulation and Design, 3rd ed.
CRC Press, Milton, 523 p.
Lakin, R., Capon, N. & Botten, N. (1996). BPR enabling software for the financial services in-dustry, Management services (Enfield), Vol. 40(3), pp. 18.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development, Strategic management journal, Vol. 13(S1), pp. 111-125.
Leung, H.M., Rao Tummala, V.M. & Chuah, K.B. (1998). A knowledge-based system for identi-fying potential project risks, Omega (Oxford), Vol. 26(5), pp. 623-638.
Li, Q. & Chen, Y. (2009). Modeling and Analysis of Enterprise and Information Systems, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 397 p.
Lind, M. & Seigerroth, U. (2010). Multi-Layered Process Modeling for Business and IT Align-ment, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 1-10.
Long, C. & Vickers-Koch, M. (1995). Using core capabilities to create competitive advantage, Organizational dynamics, Vol. 24(1), pp. 7-22.
Madakok, R. (2001). Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-Based and Dynamic-Capability Views of Rent Creation, Strategic management journal, Vol. 22(5), pp. 387-401.
Maddern, H., Smart, P.A., Maull, R.S. & Childe, S. (2014). End-to-end process management:
implications for theory and practice, Production planning & control, Vol. 25(16), pp. 1303-1321.
Malinova, M., Leopold, H. & Mendling, J. (2013). An Empirical Investigation on the Design of Process Architectures , 27th February – 01st March 2013, Leipzig, Germany
Malinova, M. & Mendling, J. (2013). The Effect of Process Map Design Quality on Process Man-agement Success, ECIS 2013, Completed research
Marques, P. & Requeijo, J. (2009). SIPOC: A Six Sigma Tool Helping on ISO 9000 Quality agement Systems, 3rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Man-agement, September 2nd-4th 2009, Barcelona-Terrassa
McCormack, K. & Rauseo, N. (2005). Building an enterprise process view using cognitive map-ping, Business process management journal, Vol. 11(1), pp. 63-74.
Mendling, J., Neumann, G. & Nüttgens, M. (2005). Yet Another Event-Driven Process Chain, in:
Anonymous (ed.), Business Process Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel-berg, pp. 428-433.
Miller, R. & Lessard, D. (2001). Understanding and managing risks in large engineering pro-jects, International journal of project management, Vol. 19(8), pp. 437-443.
Mills, A.J., Durepos, G. & Wiebe, E. (2009). Encyclopaedia of Case Study Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1152 p.
Moore, J.F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard business re-view, Vol. 71(3), pp. 75-86.
Nagano, H. (2020). The growth of knowledge through the resource-based view, Management decision, Vol. 58(1), pp. 98-111.
Ostroff, F. (1999). The Horizontal Organization, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, New York, 272 p.
Oxford Dictionary, web page, Available (accessed referred 28.2.2021): https://www.lex-ico.com/definition/competitive_advantage.
Oxford Dictionary, web page, Available (accessed referred 27.3.2021): https://www.lex-ico.com/definition/ecosystem.
Oxford Dictionary, web page, Available (accessed referred 27.3.2021): https://www.lex-ico.com/definition/interdependence.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View, Strategic management journal, Vol. 14(3), pp. 179-191.
Peteraf, M.A. & Barney, J.B. (2003). Unraveling the Resource-Based Tangle, Managerial and decision economics, Vol. 24(4), pp. 309-323.
Ponsignon, F. (2010). Process design in an information-intensive service delivery system : an empirical study, University of Exeter, 242 p.
Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students, Seventh edition. ed. Pearson Education, GB, 768 p.
Schreyögg, G. & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How Dynamic Can Organizational Capabilities Be?
Towards a Dual-Process Model of Capability Dynamization, Strategic management journal, Vol.
28(9), pp. 913-933.
Shankar, R. (2009). Process Improvement Using Six Sigma, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, 110 p.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. & Ireland, D.A. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environ-ments to Create Value: Looking inside the Black Box, The Academy of Management review, Vol. 32(1), pp. 273-292.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Arregle, J. & Tochman Campbell, J. (2010). The Dynamic Interplay of Capability Strengths and Weaknesses: Investigating the Bases of Temporary Competitive Ad-vantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, p. 1386-1409
Stalk, G., Evans, P. & Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corpo-rate stcorpo-rategy, Harvard business review, Vol. 70(2), pp. 57-69.
Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Holmström, J. & Romme, A.G.L. (2020). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model, Long range plan-ning, Vol. 53(4), pp. 101850.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic management journal, Vol. 18(7), pp. 509-533.
Teece, D.J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43(2), pp. 172-194.
Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, 1. publ. ed. Oxford Univ.
Press, Oxford, 302 p.
Teeuwen, B. (2018). Lean for the public sector: the pursuit of perfection in government services, CRC Press, 233 p.
Ubaid, A.M. & Dweiri, F.T. (2020). Business process management (BPM): terminologies and methodologies unified, International journal of system assurance engineering and management, Vol. 11(1), pp. 1046-1064.
Ulrich, W. Process Management Center of Excellence: Three Different Managerial Models, webpage, available (accessed: 12.2.2021): https://www.bpminstitute.org/resources/articles/pro-cessmanagement-center-excellence-three-different-managerial-models
Van der Aalst, W. M.P. (2013). Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey, (2013). ISRN Software Engineering, Vol. 2013 pp. 1-37.
Van der Aalst, W.M.P. (1999). Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains, In-formation and software technology, Vol. 41(10), pp. 639-650.
Van der Aalst, W.M.P (2000). Business process management, Springer, Berlin, 389 p.
Van Dijk, A. (2003). Contracting workflows and protocol patterns, Lecture notes in computer sci-ence, Springer, Berlin, pp. 152-167.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic management journal, Vol.
5(2), pp. 171-180.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After, Strategic man-agement journal, Vol. 16(3), pp. 171-174.
Weske, M. (2012). Business Process Management, 2. ed. ed. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Ber-lin, Heidelberg, 388 p.
Willaert, P., Van den Bergh, J., Willems, J. & Deschoolmeester, D. (2007). The process-oriented organisation: a holistic view: developing a framework for business process orientation maturity, Business Process Management. BPM 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4714.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Williamson, P.J. & De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem Advantage, California management review, Vol. 55(1), pp. 24-46.
Yang, C. (2015). The integrated model of core competence and core capability, Total quality management & business excellence, Vol. 26(1-2), pp. 173-189.
Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities, Organization science (Providence, R.I.), Vol. 13(3), pp. 339-351.
APPENDIX A: THE INTERVIEW STRUCTURE
1. Basic information of the interviewee a.) What is your role in the organization?
b.) Do you know into what process your work is related to?
c.) Is your work related to a certain market area, or is it a global process?
These questions are to specify your position in the company’s E2E process. The
These questions are to specify your position in the company’s E2E process. The